I’ve been watching an interview on Times Radio (a YouTube channel of the Times newspaper). The interview is conducted by one of their regular anchors and is with a US former diplomat and, it seems, psychiatrist. [1]
The former diplomatic is not stupid. For example; he points out that Russia is probably currently aiming to render Ukraine a non-functioning state (this is Mearsheimer’s point) and may well succeed. Also, that Russia is really not likely to “give Crimea back” at any negotiations. I am surprised to see him take the line of praising Zelensky as “Churchillian”. Zelensky is a fantastic speech-writer and performer. But if you listen carefully to the speeches I, at least, have seen no amazing analysis. He knows which buttons to press in his audience but that is not quite the same as having a great strategy. The interviewee says that if Zelensky had run away at the start of the conflict things would have played out very differently. Probably true, and while I too admire Zelensky for not running away, maybe it would have been better for Ukrainians if he had. (The tragedy for Zelensky is possibly that he made a serious attempt to resolve the Donbas conflict in 2019 which was blocked by Azov battalion – and since then he seems to have been swept up in a more hard-line Ukrainian nationalist position).
But the reason I link to the video is because it is for me an example of how much of the Western (especially UK) media is living on a different planet. The anchor talks about how at the negotiations Russia will have to pay reparations, how as soon as the negotiations are concluded Ukraine will join NATO, and the negotiations will “inevitably end up with Putin losing some of his illegally annexed territories… some people say part or all of Crimea”. These ideas are based on a still prevalent notion that Russia will inevitably at some point lose – and the West will be able to force terms on Russia. I can’t definitively rule that out. But it is a really unlikely case. These outcomes imply some kind of near-surrender by Russia. But, militarily Ukraine seems to be struggling and, that is not surprising; the West is quite specifically not giving them weapons and/or permission to strike Russia – which, I am not a military expert but would seem to be a prerequisite for a military victory. More likely is some kind of frozen-conflict – for example like Nagorno-Karabakh, which the not so stupid speaker mentions.
But the reason I wrote this was this: “Russia to us is a much bigger threat to us in Europe [than China]”. [30.24]. What I am struck by is the automatic assumption that Russia is a threat. Of course, now, with missiles flying one can say that Russia is a threat – though, none of the missiles have fallen on “our” (NATO) territory. But – before this started, was Russia a threat? There are two stories about Russia and the Russian “threat”. In one story Russia, (the Empire, the USSR and now Russia) is an aggressive foreign imperial power always looking to expand and take territory beyond its borders – just because it is well, aggressive. When I see this story being regaled I always remember the novelist Herman Hesse talking about our (Westerners) irrational fears of “hordes from the East”. The other story is that Russia is and throughout its history has been, defensive. Their border wars have generally been fought for the same reason; they perceive a possible threat on the border and, in order to make themselves safe, they have fought a war to secure their border. (I have seen the development economist Jeffrey Sachs make this argument in a YouTube video though I can’t locate the reference). Just like a bear, if you don’t threaten it, it won’t threaten you.
The anchor ends on a self-interested note – “will I as a UK-US dual citizen be able to travel to Russia in my lifetime?”. What does she think? Russia is North Korea? In reality there is zero stopping her getting a Russian tourist visa from one of the many agencies in London and popping on a plane to Moscow next week (albeit via Istanbul or Belgrade).
Does it matter that journalists are living in a fog of delusions? Probably it does given that a) the public read them and may believe them and in turn the public influences politics and b) apparently, some or most politicians actually form their ideas from the media. Again, the central theme of this website; if only the media would up its game – do objective analysis, stop repeating phantasies, try to understand the situation from all angles, then we could negotiate these difficult situations rather than just go for the military power answer every time. As the speaker points out – Putin is rational and quite amenable to negotiation. Even if they just listened to the more intelligent of the speakers they have on their shows they would learn something.
Notes
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdpPPK-wKM4&ab_channel=TimesRadio
